What is the mind? (edited)

Oh-oh! I meant to say, "complex functional integration" and
"bidirectional (multidirectional?) communication" !!!
F. LeFever
In <74eelr$cg8 at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
Frank LeFever) writes:
>>>>It's a small point, but repeated use of the term "neural net" bothers
>me. Perhaps it is just shorthand for "network" as a way of expressing
>multiple interactions among neurons, complelx functional communication
>and bidirectional (multidirectional?), but I keep hearing Golgi.
>>He did indeed believe that the brain was a continuous net, but Ramon y
>Cajal (whose keen eye and prodigious visual memory has probably not
>been matched to this day) used Golgi's new technique to see fine
>juxtapositions and conclude that it was not a continuous net but was
>made up of separate components, i.e. neurons. They shared the Nobel
>prize for this ironic "collaboration".
>>The devil is in the details...
>>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>>In <36694e2d.0 at ns2.wsg.net> "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>Anders N Weinstein wrote in message
>><749o1o$7ep$1 at usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
>>>>>You seem to be stuck on the idea of exactly two domains, the
knowable
>>>world of science and the world of mysteries addressed (in some
>fashion)
>>>by religion.
>>>>You are exactly right. This is exactly how I view the universe. When
>looking
>>at the physical world I see beautiful aggregations of molecules. And,
>in
>>particular, I see the fascinating aggregations of molecules that are
>the
>>neurons that especially interest me. When I step back, I know God who
>>"created" this universe. (When speaking of God, I speak only by
>analogy.)
>>>>> But the ordinary everyday environment, the world of
>>>relevance to the ends of living organisms, the world in particular
of
>>>human meaning, goes missing if we allow this dichotomous thinking.
>>>>>>Teleology belongs to religion, I thought everyone understood that. On
>>Sundays I go to Mass to contemplate teleology, at night when things
>are
>>quiet I contemplate teleology.
>>>>>I mostly use common words, and I try to stick to behavior when I
talk
>>>about behavior. If A snubs B dead, the snubbing is not an event in
>the
>>>neurons, it is something in the open that anyone might see.
>>>>>>You date yourself. This "common language" stuff came up in the
>thirties when
>>some British philosophers started "doing philosophy in the new way".
>It died
>>out in the seventies.
>>>>>>The reality remains, for Science man is a mammal, a vertebrate, an
>animal.
>>Of animals, man is one of those that possess a neural net. All
>behavior of
>>such an animal is driven by its neural net. One attempts to examine
>the
>>neural net to determine which neurons do what. One examines the
>molecules in
>>a neuron to determine which molecules do what.
>>>>This is neuroscience.
>>>>>>Those philosophers who attempt teleology without invoking God, drool
>>bullshit.
>>>>Ray
>>Those interested in how the brain works might look at
>>www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html
>>>>>>>>>